taos65

Pete Davidson has had some WTF moments in the public eye. One of the healthiest ways to deal with that kind of negative celebrity is to become part of the joke, instead of letting people drive you crazy. That's exactly what Davidson seems to be doing here with Bupkis.

As the title - and the caveat at the beginning of each episode - implies, it's a fictionalized version of his life, not a real story. It's loosely based on his life, in the style of "Weird," the recent Roku Channel movie about Weird Al Yankovic, or Curb Your Enthusiasm. The craziness to which we have been witness is only the beginning. This is a behind-the-scenes, day-to-day weirdness that could possibly apply to any celebrity of Davidson's generation, only Davidson understands how to smoothly tap into the zeitgeist of his generation and turn it into his own personal backdrop.

I wonder how much of it is true, and how much is fiction? Like, I wonder how much his father's death in the national tragedy that was the 9/11 attack affected him, including what he remembers about what his new normal became, and how his family had to compensate for the loss of a man who instantly became (along with the other first responders who died that day) a symbol of American bravery, regardless of who or what they were in their private lives to that point?

Having seen interviews with his mother in real life, this fictionalized version is very over-the-top, and Edie Falco plays her to perfection. Obsessed with Peter, to the point of not seeing her other child as anything but "the sister of Pete Davidson" just like everyone else, is amusing. The rest of the family - mainly played by Brad Garrett and Joe Pesci - as well as Bobby Cannavale's Uncle Tommy, are hilariously written to be typical New York tropes. His entourage/friends are also stereotypes yet played so well.

I'm not a huge Pete Davidson fan, but I'm not a Davidson hater, either. I think he's more talented than many people give him credit for, and that he is of his generation, which isn't my generation (I'm probably older than his mother) but I've always enjoyed his humor, including on SNL. I'm very glad that this show - though executive produced by Lorne Michaels - was written about other parts of Davidson's (fictionalized) life and work outside SNL. The cameos are both notable yet understated, like we can see Pete Davidson - earlier in his career, pre-Ariana Grande - believing that Ray Romano would just show up in his trailer in Canada to give him twisted fatherly advice.

Davidson seems to be embracing the self-deprecating look at his life for our enjoyment, too. This is not his SNL stuff, but this is still the satire he is known for. It's sarcasm. If you 're not a fan of sarcasm, you probably won't enjoy it. If you're not into people being able to poke fun at themselves and at the people who get their jollies off marginalizing them for their own strange purposes, then you can skip Bupkis. I mean, the title tells you this is fiction. If you don't guess that this is Pete Davidson's comedic view of his life, and you don't know that he's a comedian and don't know his kind of humor, your enjoyment or lack thereof is on you, not him.

***THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS FOR BOTH THE AMERICAN & BRITISH VERSIONS OF THE TV SHOW GHOSTS***

It always seems that any great new ideas that come to American entertainment originated in Great Britain. So it is with the new CBS series, Ghosts.

While I agree that the original British version is a must-see for any fan of this show, I have to vehemently disagree that the American version is inferior. Far from it.

Culturally speaking, the two shows have to be different - that fact was already learned the hard way by the people who brought us the American version of The Office. Just replicating the British version will not work here. For starters, the people who inhabited the land differ - the ghosts themselves HAVE to differ. Our nation's have VERY different histories. I know that because I am a historian. The entire concept of this show draws upon the history of a piece of land, who may have died on it and how.

Americans are, by nature, a more optimistic group than Britons. A character who reenacts her murder every day at the stroke of 3 a.m. (whether or not it's actually 3 a.m.) might prove too disturbing to some Americans, who by & large wouldn't find the humor in it. I'm not saying no one would - I got it - but it has to appeal to mainstream America, who must identify with the characters & situations.

Also, the British original has 18 episodes over 3 seasons, plus 1, episode-length Christmas special. That doesn't cut it for American broadcast television, for which a season is typically 26 episodes, and a special runs 1 hour (42 minutes of which is the episode). Characters need better development, viewers need to identify with them faster and deeper, and episode plots need to address topics nearly everyone can sympathize with, without broaching political or religious taboos.

I'd say that this show has taken the premise of the British original and Americanized it quite well. It's no easy feat. America is NOT Britain West. We fought a Revolutionary War to avoid that possibility. If you find the British version superior, bravo, it's available on HBO Max. Took me 2 days to watch the entire series while I was off work sick a few weeks ago. If you're not up on your European *and* American History, some of the humor of both series may go over your head.

I give this version 9 stars instead of 10 because there's a character who is introduced in the 1st episode but forgotten about afterwards (so far), whereas his equivalent in the British version figures prominently; that is the beheaded character. Unfortunately, in this version, I don't even know his name - he appears to be a 1950s greaser, but other than seeing him once or twice in the pilot, he hasn't reappeared. He should have by now, or the other ghosts should have mentioned his presence among the ghosts living in the upstairs. I've seen where the writers have said he will come into the story again this season, but this is going way too long for that to be done other than awkwardly.

All-in-all, I am glad that there is an American version of this show. Is the show wildly anachronistic? Of course it is. It's not a History lesson. It's not educational tv. Is it a funny premise for a tv show? I think it is. Set aside your sense of the rational & reasonable - it's a show about a woman who obtains the ability to see & communicate with ghosts of people whose sudden or tragic deaths didn't allow them to pass on to the other side, yet. In the meantime, I have a feeling that the dead are going to teach them more about living than life ever could. Why? Because there's always a moral behind American stories. We were, after all, first settled by the Puritans. We Americans feel guilty about entertainment just for the sake of entertainment. There will be a moral to the story, too.

Loved the buddy chemistry between Kunis and McKinnon. Loved that, though there were "love interests," the action centered around their friendship & helping each other through this mission they were on. Of course it's a preposterous movie - that's the point! This is made for just shutting down reality and enjoying the comedic stylings of a couple of funny ladies on an unrealistic mission. If you can't just suspend reality for a couple of hours & enjoy a silly movie made for adults for once, then by all means, don't bother. It has gross parts, but even I, who gets queasy very easily, thought those parts were funny. I wish I had read the trivia here before watching the movie, which I recorded from TV in the past week or so. All in all, very entertaining if you let go of reality & just accept that it's a goofy movie.

I never much cared about the "oasis in the dessert," a/k/a Palm Springs, until I started watching Desert Flippers. While I still would never want to live there, at least now I have some knowledge about the place, thanks to Eric & Lindsey. They are classic Midwesterners - I can picture them on a Wisconsin dairy farm, visiting folks back home, fitting in just fine. Everyone there laughs at Eric's terrible puns. That's why he still makes them - he grew up thinking his corny jokes were funny. To tell the truth, every once in a while, they make me laugh, but even when they make me groan, I do it with a smile. Lindsey loves, loves, loves demo, even more so than the men in her family. Even while pregnant, she was willing to get her hands dirty. She's not the delicate Southern or Coastal lady designer we are used to seeing in couple's flip shows - she's more Nicole Curtis than Joanna Gaines, and I like that about her. She also grins & bears her husband for the cameras.

Not being locals had to have been hard for them, breaking into the real estate market in Palm Springs, especially after expanding their family to include 3 sons. I'm sure the HGTV money & exposure helped, because the market wasn't doing well when they first started, from what they said. That's good for getting flip homes at low prices, not so good once you flip those homes and want to sell them. Like the former California couple, the El Moussas, doing tv probably was, at first, a means to help save their business. That's just a guess on my part. They certainly have had to keep costs down, which denotes a more "realistic" budget (i.e., they don't seem to be pumping their tv money into their flip business, but using their actual profits, as a true flip business operates) from other flip shows I've watched. They also give us a more realistic view of how homes are flipped - flipped homes don't normally have "wow" designs, they have, "this home needs to appeal to as many buyers as possible" designs. Most of their budgets - as nearly all flippers make painfully aware - goes into the systems hidden in walls, ceilings, basements, etc. Really, at the end of the day, if you're a home owner, that IS what ends up mattering the most to you, because that's what's most expensive to fix - and least possible to live without. What makes a home function, a working HVAC system, or the kind of tile in the bathroom? They spend the money where it needs to be spent, and produce reasonably-priced homes for the market in which they live. They don't take their homes out of the price range of the average Palm Springs home buyer. I admire that. If they made the pact that I think they made - that the tv money is separate from their business - they are smarter than MANY viewers are giving them credit.

The only real head-scratcher for me, since Season 3, has been, what happened to Lindsey's brother, Michael, a/k/a Uncle Mike? We didn't see him at all in the 3rd season, and no one mentioned his name. He wasn't in the background, among the crew, anywhere on camera or at home. Was there a family problem? Or did he just strike out on his own, no longer content to be babysitter and construction foreman? It's really none of my business, except that he was there for 2 seasons, then all of a sudden he doesn't exist anymore, and no one speaks his name. At least that leaves more work for local crews, and it kind of amuses yet infuriates me to see that much of America is clueless that many residents of California are of Latin American ancestry. Especially considering, parts of that land used to belong to Mexico! Seriously, Mexican-Americans aren't exploited every time they get a job, especially people who work in blue collar trades; that's being racist.

I believe that Lindsey & Eric give us a refreshing view, season after season, of a real husband & wife real estate flipping business. Neither overly frugal nor extravagant, they aren't trying to make enough money to buy up the town or a $4M house, they just want to renovate run-down homes, make a modest profit, and make time for their children. Their interactions are as corny as an Iowa farm - so what? If seeing a loving couple bothers you, you really have a problem, not them. They really love their lives, love what they do for a living, and at the end of the day, that's success. I'd take a man like Eric - bad puns & all - over anyone else I've seen on tv any day. If I was a man, I think I'd probably be impressed by Lindsey's attitude, and she's cute as a button to boot. But the fact of the matter is that they know their real estate, construction, and market - they are technically sound. They aren't trying to impress viewers, they are trying to sell houses. I hope they're in production for Season 4, because I miss them.

***SPOILER ALERT*** If you haven't seen this episode or this season yet, I don't want my comment to ruin anything for you. While I don't intend to discuss the plot or ending at all, I'd still rather be cautious.

The past couple years, Investigation Discovery has been "previewing" upcoming episodes and new series in a New Year's Day marathon. It's nice to get an early look at upcoming series, get them set up in my DVR before they start. And any extra Lt. Kenda is bonus Lt. Kenda, so normally I wouldn't complain about that.

Until I recognized the final episode of the season as soon as it started - but not its name. Such was the case with "One to the Heart." As soon as the episode started, I thought, "I've seen this episode before!" Then I went through the episode list, but the name didn't match any other episode. However, the plot did, so I ran the start of each of those episodes side-by-side, and I was right, the January 1st episode and February 14th episode have different names, but are the same episode!

Way to ruin the end of the season, I.D.! It's not a bad episode, but I already saw it.

***MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS OF ENTIRE FIRST SEASON***

I love John Lithgow, and just about anything he's acted in. He's one of my favorite comedic actors for being able to normalize the outlandish. He is the reason I decided to watch this sitcom, but not the only reason I stayed through to the end.

Though I'm from a very rural part of PA (which describes 90% of PA), I lived in Upstate South Carolina for 4 years while earning my Masters degree there. In between my BA and MA degrees, I worked in the high- powered law firms of Washington DC, and continued that career into SC as a side job to my academic career, so I've worked in small, single- attorney, South Carolina law firms.

So imagine my reaction to many of the characteristics of this show, as it hit upon personal experiences, personal knowledge, subjects with which I am intimately familiar.

I loved it. Of course, there are - because it's a sitcom, not real life - inconsistencies with reality, but I enjoyed it's portrayal of small- town South Carolina, because I met many of those characters. It may rub actual Southerners the wrong way, but as an outsider who observed my surroundings, those characters exist. They exist in PA, too, for the record, just without the charming Southern accent. The way law is practiced in some parts of South Carolina, believe it or not, is fairly accurately depicted. Some of their laws are head-scratchers, just not the ones depicted in the show. Who you know tends to be more important than what you know, and can influence, not just the outcome of your case, but even how it proceeds. I saw this in action. It was not the outrageous example of My Cousin Vinny, where he was told what to wear to Court, and stonewalled on submitting his qualifications - I found that to be ridiculous in the sense they weren't going for. But a judge and prosecutor making plans in open court for after the hearing? That's true Southern justice.

My late younger sister, and her daughter, both inherited dyslexia, and though we also found the humor in it, it wasn't accurately portrayed. Dyslexia *can* work in one's favor in strange ways, but again, just not as depicted. But kudos to them for using it as a device for the climax of their plot! My sister could've corrected their depiction of it better than I can. But still funny.

I didn't find anything in Lithgow's character, Larry Henderson, that reminded me of prior TV characters in similar situations. I love how Lithgow made Larry lovable, considering his affair, his lies, and other outrageous behaviors. Henderson had such a happy, cheerful, almost childlike approach to life, he often lifted the spirits of his legal team, of his daughter, instead of the other way around. It seems to me that the writers should have put a little more effort into this, and instead of using the ubiquitous mockumentory style that's so overused today, they could have perhaps had Larry narrate his story (as an epic poem, of course, since Henderson was a poet), or had an omniscient narrator, or even - if you want to take the genre of the Investigation Discovery true crime shows further, had Larry's late wife herself narrate the story from a different omniscient perspective. However, I do understand what spoof they were going for, being a true crime aficionado. It certainly was not to copy what's been done in other *sitcoms*, but what's done in Forensic Files, 48 Hours, etc.

All in all, despite my review sounding so picky, I thoroughly enjoyed this show, and am looking forward to Season 2. I wonder if there will be another big-name celebrity cast as the alleged criminal in the next season? I wonder what new and strange medical conditions Sherry Shepherd's character will present with? Only time will tell.

• I just mini binge-watched all 4 episodes of Telenovela broadcast to date, and have no idea what would be spoilers or not, so just warning, there might be some. •

I really liked what I've seen so far, but it's a little rough around the edges. The cast of characters is nearly perfect, but at this point, the show needs to develop these characters more than concentrate on love lives. Ana needs to be more miserable about the presence of her ex on the show, with more opportunities for them to have to appear together in public. And more time needs to be devoted to showing the filming of Las Leyes de Pasíon and Ana's script problems - exacerbated by the blood alcohol or pharmaceutical status of the scriptwriter.

Ana's typical American conundrum of not speaking the language of her nationality instantly recalled for me an interview I saw with My Name Is Earl co-star Nadine Velazquez. Her character, Catalina, spoke fluent Spanish; Velazquez, not so much. She admitted she had to learn Spanish to do interviews for Spanish- language networks, and that anyone who knows Spanish would recognize that, when Catalina went off in Spanish, it was usually some silly message from Nadine breaking the 4th wall instead.

I'll admit, I was never quite a fan of Longoria, but I love her in this show because her TV character is the one with the sex appeal, the perfection, the unattainable beauty - whereas Ana is human, flawed, insecure, vulnerable.

And her Miami is the Miami I just left a few years ago after grad school. Unless you live in Little Havana, on Calle Ocho, you can live comfortably without Spanish. But not without at least the semblance of glamour, no matter your income level.

The show isn't gut-splitting funny, but it's amusing. It needs to exploit the wealth of character that's just beneath its fear of success. It's not Ugly Betty or Jane the Virgin; i.e., it's not an American rip-off of an already existing telenovela. It's a parody of the genre (and from what I can see, also a funny look at the reality of being an American of Latin descent, as opposed to Latino, in Miami). But I can't figure out so far why it's afraid to run with that, the way Soap did with American soap operas. For sure, this will never be Soap en Español, but it can carve out a little niche for itself, like NBC's fish-out- of-water series, Welcome to Sweden.

I hope Telenovela doesn't make the mistake that Outsourced did - lose its focus very early. There's a market for a Latin-American sit- com. I was hoping Cristela would be it and was very disappointed when it wasn't renewed. Longoria is well- established in the TV business, but can she make this show a winner? I sure hope that's one of Las Leyes de Pasíon.

I don't know how much could be described as "spoilers" when talking about an overview of a state in a 5 year old series, but be that as it may, this review addresses the whole episode, so if you don't want to know what's in it, please look no further

I'm a historian from Southwestern PA (Fayette County), and looked forward to this episode now that I have the Smithsonian Channel, which draws on its archives all day long for its programming (the reason I'm seeing this for the first time now).

When it comes to other people's views of PA, I expected to see an emphasis on Philadelphia. Though it stings a bit, I know that a great deal of PA history comes from that area. Central to the development, not just of the Commonwealth, but the nation, too, Philadelphia is steeped in PA history. But as an aerial review of the Commonwealth, this episode missed the mark on so much that makes PA unique, to concentrate on things that I believe are so trifling or insignificant, I didn't quite like it.

For example, they spend what to me was an inordinate amount of time speaking of Penn State football, and even the Jerry Sandusky case. While PSU's the largest university in the Commonwealth (btw, it never once said PA is a Commonwealth), to focus only on its football team because it has a large stadium does PSU no justice because it's an excellent research school. Besides that, we have the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and one of the largest university hospital systems in the region, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center system (UPMC for short) - it's also one of the top 10 hospital systems in the nation, with satellite hospitals, affiliated clinics, and thousands of in-network doctors spread through many counties, offering big-city quality care to many poor, rural areas.

The narrative gets very political in its discussion of the Marcellus Shale. They blame the controversy surrounding it on "environmentalists," stating that the industry has already researched fracking and found it to be safe, and well owners happily make profits. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's PA residents, not environmentalists, who first reported problems. Tap water they could set on fire, entire towns that became uninhabitable, and an increase in seismic activity all speak to the problems of fracking, leading many jurisdictions to make fracking illegal within their boundaries. The industry fought tooth and nail to keep it secret what they were blasting into our water table. Neighbors in some cases find they can't move and sell their homes because no one wants to buy a house next to a natural gas well. Ironically, where I live, you'll see dozens of wells nearby, but natural gas will never be available to us. Many of us are incensed that gas companies get tax breaks, allowing them to operate without contributing towards the coffers of a state that's pressed to clean up after their disasters.

I know this was just an hour, but there were two glaring omissions that made me wonder who they consulted for this: the Pocono Mountain resorts, and Fallingwater. The latter really upset me. They flew over the Flight 93 memorial site, yet couldn't fly 40 miles SW over what I consider to be the most iconic home in the United States? There are two Frank Lloyd Wright homes in Fayette County, Kentuck Knob is near Fallingwater, and they didn't even mention them? The Pocono Mountains in the eastern part of the state have world-class resorts that have been around for over 100 years!

Even when they do cover things that make Pennsylvanians proud, like Pittsburgh's skyline, they could've familiarized themselves with more facts. Take their information on the downtown PPG towers. They were made out of special glass, and mimic the Cathedral of Learning on the Oakland campus of the University of Pittsburgh. Speaking of which, the Cathedral is the tallest university building in the western hemisphere! If you're in the sky over Pittsburgh, how do you miss this? At 42 stories, its Gothic Revival style, mixed with Art Deco stepping, makes it a wondrous landmark, with "Nationality Rooms" in which students and visitors alike can learn about other cultures. Why talk about Penn State's stadium when Pitt's Cathedral of Learning is much more impressive and important?

While they point out that one of the bridges is named to honor Andy Warhol, it's one of a set of triplets, if you will. There are identical (and sequential) ones named after Silent Spring author, the ground-breaking environmentalist Rachel Carson, and Roberto Clemente, the Puerto Rican Pittsburgh Pirate baseball player. That would've taken a few seconds, at most, to add. After the end of the Warhol bridge, one can find the Andy Warhol Museum. Worth a mention.

I do appreciate that they correctly called our coal & steel communities "patches." This is unique, mostly to western PA. They give a good explanation of why these little rural communities exist - mostly built by the steel and coal companies operating in the area 100+ years ago to house immigrant workers from Eastern and Southern Europe coming to take part in the Industrial Revolution. Coming from a patch myself, I appreciated that they took the time to explain that.

Over all, this was mediocre. It caught glimpses into the greatness that is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but it missed some of the greatest things I feel are synonymous with PA. I don't think it would have taken more than a few minutes to include many of the things I mention here, and they could have abbreviated or even left out some of the things that "made the cut" that aren't that important, in the grand scheme of things, when I think of flying over my home state to view its rich history.

***Spoiler Alert*** If you don't want to know anything that goes on during some episodes, don't read!"

I don't know if my NBC affiliate picked up Welcome to Sweden, I found it on my DirecTv app. Knowing little about it, I had all episodes sent to my Genie. I've gotten through a few episodes, and am finding it to be uncomfortably enjoyable.

I've read some of the other reviews here, and it's apparent to me that a few reviewers aren't familiar with Amy Poehler's non-SNL work, or can't imagine her connection to this project other than the sanguinity between the producer and the lead actor. But the opening sequence is a dead giveaway that Welcome to Sweden is related to Parks & Recreation.

The people who don't know who Aubrey Plaza is definitely never watched Parks & Recreation, and are obviously unacquainted with creepy, deadpan, spontaneous, lazy & manipulative April. Fans often confuse actors with the characters they portray, but Plaza admits to having some April in her. She steals April wholly to portray herself here. Will Ferrell also plays oddball here - not Ron Burgundy or Chazz Michael Michaels, I've seen this character before but I can't recall where off the top of my head. He is married to a Swedish woman in real life. It's too bad that Will Arnett isn't a part of Amy's life anymore, he would make a great addition to this cast.

It seems that some people were expecting a sitcom, but got art nouveau instead.

The characters are all odd, actually. Bruce is nothing short of the biggest Doofus this side of Andy in P&R, except Bruce displays greater maturity & work ethic, but has fewer of Andy's endearing qualities. I think many people expect Emma to be less strange than Bruce, and the only reason I can find for this is that most people assume that beautiful women are somehow more polished, more mature - in effect, perfectly normal. But Emma is not. People ask, why is she with Bruce? Why should she not be? Just because she's pretty does not mean she isn't neurotic, strange, or a Doofus in her own right. Just as her parents had all these expectations that they feel Bruce doesn't live up to that we viewers can see are either reasonable or not, so we viewers shouldn't be placing our prejudices on Emma. Pretty women can be hot messes.

Emma's family are a hoot. They make perfect sense to me. I've been in the situation of being brought into a family I don't know, as a live-in girlfriend, and to say it's awkward is an understatement. Add a culture clash and more than a little neuroticism, and you have this quirky show that I want to continue watching.

As for the people who just can't believe this has been picked up for a second season: Amy's recent endeavor, Parks & Recreation, had a 1st season of 6 episodes. A second season wasn't a given. The third season didn't even start until January of the TV season, because there was talk of cancellation. Similarly, Amy's former SNL castmate, Tina Fey, was getting awards for 30 Rock, with almost no audience share. I can remember when they got, I don't know if it was a SAG award, or a Golden Globe, in season 1 or 2, and Tina thanked their "dozens and dozens" of viewers. Yet these shows went on to carve niches out, P&R not so much as 30 Rock; still, P&R will be an instant cult classic.

Welcome to Sweden isn't perfect. It's odd, discomfiting, droll, peculiar, and a bit offensive. Just what I'd expect from the Poehlers.

I'll start by saying I'm an adult who enjoys a few Disney shows because they are more entertaining than pretty much anything else on TV. I came here to look up some info on the show, and see all of these negative reviews, some of which seem to forget this is Disney, know what the target audience is, or don't even have facts about the characters straight, and I feel like I need to add my voice as someone who enjoys the show for what it is, and doesn't expect it to be more than that.

"Jessie" isn't the best show on Disney, but it's far from the worst. I have some news that I think will shock some reviewers, but Disney shows don't deal in reality. "Jessie" isn't a documentary about nannies in NYC. It's also not supposed to take the place of parenting; i.e., if your complaint is what kind of role models the characters are, that's because they aren't role models, they are silly TV characters. I also watch a show about a talking dog that has a blog, it doesn't make me think my cats are losers because getting on the computer to them means laying on the keyboard.

In fact, once I get to thinking about it, the whole plot of the show is that a young Texan girl just out of high school moves to NYC to follow her dreams of being an actress, but like most aspiring actors, she has to take a non-acting job until she makes it, so she got a job as the nanny for a bunch of spoiled rich kids. That is what the show is about. If that isn't your idea of funny, don't watch it.

If you are looking for role models, Disney isn't doing them right now, they are doing silly, flawed characters. Look what happened with Hannah Montana - supposedly a role model, Miley Cyrus became inseparable from the character, and when Miley grew up and cast off her Disney persona, people wondered what happened. Disney is probably trying to avoid that ever happening again by making their characters overtly silly, also doing commercials where the actors say their real names. But, getting back to my point, the entire plot of this show is that these are spoiled rich kids. Even Jessie isn't a role model. Some of the characters don't make sense, like Zuri – again, with Disney you have to suspend disbelief. I thought people knew that about Disney?

"Jessie" is about as silly as a TV show that's not a cartoon or puppet show can get, it's not intended to be intelligent humor. It mocks the ultra-rich and this new adopt-a-menagerie of kids pursuit, and also the idea that the nanny sees the kids grow up, and knows more about them, than the parents. The target audience isn't too young, it has to be about 12-16, or thereabouts, because even Zuri acts more like an adolescent than a child. Despite being a self-absorbed rich kid raised in a very sheltered, privileged, and indulgent lifestyle, Emma is surprisingly likable. Other than the typical Disney-kid hijinks, there seems to be honest affection, not just among the kids, but with Jessie and even Bertram. In that respect, the show demonstrates cooperation and making the best of a situation you didn't create, you were just thrust into. A little bit of sibling rivalry is present as important to the plots, but as in any Disney family, it would never threaten their relationships with each other. As the series progresses, the characters seem to become more like their own little family, the usually-absent Ross parents being left out and replaced by the butler and the nanny.

Someone made a comment about the "romances" and seems to think this is new to tween or teen TV shows. It's not. When I was a little girl in the '70s, romantic relations were just as popular a topic as they are today. Crushes and adolescent dating were on our minds, we just didn't have 5 channels of TV devoted to us (we didn't have 5 channels of TV, period). If there weren't TV shows devoted to it, we had to read it in books and magazines, and many stories I read that I remember now were very similar to "Jessie."

Debby Ryan is adorable. I think she's great for this role. In fact, I think Disney's hitting it out of the park with casting their TV shows lately. I would love to see her in more work outside of Disney, especially featuring her musical talent. Cameron Boyce has great dancing talent, not just the break dancing he displays on the show but also in the PSA where he does some Broadway moves - I could see him do theater. In fact, he seems to be the most versatile actor of this ensemble other than Ryan.

I will never understand this idea of bashing a show when no one is forcing you to watch it. If you don't like "Jessie," that's your prerogative, but don't expect it to be things it's not: it's not reality, it's not preachy, it is Disney and it's just silly entertainment. Well, at least some of us like to watch the TV and laugh at silliness that makes no statement other than sit back and enjoy the crazy. I just wish there were more new episodes than one per month, that seems to be a Disney thing right now. I still watch the same episodes over and over. At least until my cats get their own Instagram accounts and Tyler teaches them to take selfies.

It was nice to see a movie on the Lifetime Movies channel that had an interesting plot and hopeful ending instead of the tired genre of women who have to leave abusive husbands.

I agree with those commentators who loved the performances. The actors' portrayals of the characters make these people believable -- it would have been so easy for them to fall into stereotype or one-dimension, but the actors actually made these characters real, complicated, flawed and redeemable human beings.

***Plot summary may contain spoilers*** The story line is kind of humorous. A young boy, Thaniel, is forced by some cool (to him) older hoods to hold a gun during a robbery attempt, and they use his fingers to pull the trigger to wound Reynolds' character. I didn't quite understand why the boy's mom, Tyree, decided to drive to her family home so far away with a man bleeding from a wound in the taxi she drove, but people do strange things in real life, too. Her family is a mixture of sweet, sad, passionate, and funny. They accept her back into the fold as the prodigal daughter, though they didn't know exactly how prodigal she had been. Eli (Reynolds' character) helps her to open up and heal the rifts within the family and within herself. To do so she must face up and 'fess up to the truth of her past. Her family's old Southern evangelicalism allows for them to forgive her and redeem herself and her son.

I disagree with those commentators who think that the religious aspect was phony or overblown. Anyone who has ever lived in the Southern U.S. knows that religion plays this role in people's lives, and I believe it was accurately portrayed based on my experience living in the South. The symbolism was very apparent, but wasn't cheesy.

All-in-all, I think this is a beautiful movie, with a mixture of humor, pain, religion, secrets, and in the end, a new beginning.

I saw this movie on network tv tonight - it was put up against the Frazier finale, and I will admit that I spent a lot of time flipping back and forth and missed some of both shows because of it.

But I had to keep flipping back to the movie, it was too compelling not to. I can identify with Dunst's character -- to a certain extent I can't, because my dad was a blue collar worker and my mom is still very well alive. But I was a "good" kid and straight-A student who, because of a series of family tragedies during my early teen years, did "bad" things in high school - like Nicole, mostly a lot of drinking and sex -- and I had a "bad" reputation for a few years and hung out with the wrong people (the "real" delinquents), as well as the class leaders (who weren't as clean-cut as you might think). So I could identify with Nicole, with not *really* being a delinquent, but acting like one part-time (and I've gone on to get graduate degrees and become a professor, despite my behavior in high school, as I suspect she will clean up her act and go on to have the life her mother would have wanted her to have).

And if I had met a hunk like Carlos -- isn't she lucky? Jay Hernandez was pretty hot in this movie. He did come across as closer to college age than high school age, but children of immigrants also seem more mature than average American teens anyhow, since, like Carlos, they often have some issues to deal with. I like it that he was clean-cut, hard-working, and on the right track. Not all immigrants or teenagers are future prisoners or drive-by victims. In fact, I think that more immigrant teens are hardworking because they have come here to make the American dream. So his character worked for me.

Her father was an interesting character. I like it that he wasn't a stereotypical white-bread know-nothing dad, that he understood his daughter's pain, but also, as he says to Carlos, has had to come to grips with his daughter's behavioral problems. I understand how he wanted to shield Carlos from Nicole -- even Gandhi has said that chances are you will not bring people up to your level, they will bring you down to their's (in his Autobiography). That Carlos really loves Nicole enough to want to stay with her -- so many people have commented negatively on the Hollywood happy ending of this story, but since I have been on a different side of things -- none of my "loves" ever survived the nastiness of my life -- it's nice to see that there can be hope at the end. Because she really isn't a bad person, she isn't a delinquent, she is just hurting a pain that is unimaginable (unless you have lost your mother, you don't know how you will act) and overwhelming, especially if you are a teen. And regardless of what those jaded people have to say, love *can* make you decide to change your path, it can make you want to be the best person you can be.

It was a nice Hollywood story about love and choices. And Jay Hernandez was hot. I'm glad that the sex scenes weren't too graphic, though -- I wasn't interested in watching porn, which is what you get in a lot of movies today. Sometimes it is nice just to get a feeling of the closeness of two individuals without graphic sex scenes ruining the feeling. Again, if you want to see more skin, the internet is full of porn - some of it for free - go check it out, leave this movie alone. Besides, teenage sex isn't always that thrilling, it is more about the desire and the emotions, and we got a full dose of that (I think) in the movie already. But it is also a movie your teenagers can see and you can comment to them on the choices that you are faced with and how you affect other people -- and it is a story line that they can relate to.

I wish I had seen all of the movie, instead of sharing it with Frazier, and had I known there was a movie on tonight that I was going to want to see I would have set the VCR. This is a movie that is worth seeing, if you are a romantic and believe that teen love can lead to something positive. I rate it up there with "Say Anything" as a good story about teen love.

I did not see the original 1927 silent version (yet), or the Broadway musical, just this version. However, as a professor of 20th century U.S. history, I think that this film captures the spirit of the 1920s very well. People who don't get it might not have studied this time period in depth. The U.S. was just out of World War I, and the violence of that war (the use of bombs and torpedoes for the first time) scared the Western world into thinking that perhaps they had little time left to live it up. Then Armistice Day (11/11/18) was supposed to be the end of all wars, and a decade-long celebration ensued (ended only by the crash of the stock market in Oct. 1929). This is the time of Prohibition, speakeasies and rumrunners, jazz clubs and gangsters (think Al Capone, who controlled Chicago in the 1920s). Women still were thought incapable of heinous crimes, and male chauvanism *could* well be and was exploited to the advantage of women, as most people in the U.S. held a dim view of law and order.

In the midst of this celebration were the press, as liberated as the rest of society, as always a reflection of the values of its society. And the reporter Maurine Dallas Watkins covered these stories for the Chicago Tribune. As was the style of the day, female murderers were made into heroes, women who been done wrong, and committing a crime of passion was fashionable. Many modern viewers may not understand that this really was true. Go to the library and ask to see microfilm of the Chicago Tribune for 1924, read the headlines of Beulah Annan's murder trial (this is the basis for the play and musical, Chicago). Those viewers of the modern film (or even the play) may think that the view of the prisons, court system and subject matter are either overly critical or overdone, but there was a great need to clean up corruption on every level in the 1920s. Too bad not enough historians out there get a chance to teach about society and culture in these earlier time periods in U.S. history.

To that extent, Chicago, the 2002 film, really captures 1920s Chicago and U.S. values in the most prosperous decade of the 20th century. The costuming in the 2002 film is awesome -- Renee Zellweger has the PERFECT 1920s figure (the flappers strove for small busts - even binding their breasts to create the illusion of no bust), as the androgynist look was a must for the flapper. Catherine Zeta-Jones, who has a gorgeous figure in the modern day, would have not been considered sexy in the 1920s but is stunning in this film. As with some others on this database, I am not a fan of Gere's, but I am not disinclined to liking him, especially as his natural charisma makes Flynn the perfect schyster lawyer of the 1920s. And Queen Latifah runs away with her role, too. The entire cast is brilliant. As Roxie isn't supposed to be a professional-caliber singer, Zellweger's own lack of professional singing background gives the character legitimacy. The rest of the cast have performed in musical theater, and Zeta-Jones was a professional dancer before she was an actor. Gere had never tap-danced before, and again, his inexperience gives credibility to his tap-dancing lawyer (how many lawyers are professional-grade tap-dancers, besides the late-great Gregory Hines' portrayal on Will and Grace?).

All in all, I think that this film is fun. If you understand that the 1920s was a bad time in American society, one filled with violence and crime and illicit activities, then you understand why everyone in the film (except the "innocent," Amos, a throw-back to the days before The Great War) is complicite in the lies and debauchery. The music is great, really captures the mood of the 1920s. I just showed a documentary film on the 1920s to my students earlier in the day from watching this film, and it rang true to the historical information. That some of the costumes were updated and there are some original songs is okay to me, because all of it was meant to capture a spirit, not completely replicate the past or the stage play.